Thoughts on Philosophical Issues and Current Events

‘Atheism Plus': I’m Sceptical

Atheists will be used to mischaracterisations of their position. One common misunderstanding is that being an atheist means ‘believing in nothing’. As we know, the term ‘atheist’ describes our lack of belief in (or denial of) the existence of gods. Of course, atheism is compatible with ‘belief in nothing’, but usually atheists will hold other positive beliefs about other issues. For instance, one might be an atheist and be pro-life, or a socialist, or a preference utilitarian, etc. The label ‘atheist’ doesn’t speak about other beliefs you might have, unless it would be contradictory to both be an atheist and hold that belief. For example, one cannot be both an atheist and believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, as belief in the Resurrection requires first that one believes in the Christian conception of God. That would be a contradiction.

With that in mind, it isn’t hard to see why I’m surprised that blogger Jen McCreight has started a new movement, or ‘wave’ of atheism: Atheism+. She sees atheism (as a movement) in its current form as a ‘Boy’s [sic]Club’, and makes an analogy with the ‘waves’ of feminism:

It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists.

That is very unfair. Take her scoffing at those debunking homeopathy for instance. Firstly, it is unclear what homeopathy has to do with atheism. Secondly, those who do spent a lot of time debunking homeopathy might have a variety of reasons for doing so. One might be that debunking pseudo-scientific claims is a hobby for them. I see no harm in that, and examining such claims can be a great learning experience in general. Another might be to prevent harm done by people peddling homeopathy as a substitute for real medicine, and this is a very worthwhile goal. One can do these things without harming the cause of social justice. That is important. We each make our own contributions in our own way. Many people do not actively help disabled people in their plight, for example. But unless they’re standing in the way of those who actually are doing that, I don’t think that we should criticise them for their lack of action (or else we’d all be hypocrites).

We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

It speaks to those of us who see atheism as more than just a lack of belief in god.

I’d like to think that I am all of those things. I could add more: I’m an atheist plus a socialist. I’m an atheist plus I’m pro-choice. I’m an atheist plus a Wagnerite! ‘Atheist’ describes just one part of my belief system. However, McCreight’s idea that atheism should be seen as ‘more than just a lack of belief in god’ does not make a lot of sense. If ‘atheist’ includes social justice, then saying ‘atheist plus social justice’ is trivial. If it doesn’t, then it is difficult to see how this is different from ‘first wave’ atheism.

Perhaps I’m being uncharitable here. McCreight isn’t talking about the definition of ‘atheism’, but rather she is talking about forming a new movement with atheism at its core. I still believe this is problematic.

1) There is already something like this: humanism. It involves positive ethical beliefs in addition to a commitment to rational, philosophical and scientific inquiry. One difference, however is that humanism isn’t explicitly atheist, yet I don’t see why this should matter. After all humanism already has an explicit commitment to human rationality, so it is unclear what benefit there is to getting rid of religious belief completely. We might call it ‘humanism that excludes non-atheists’ without any substantive difference, yet when framed like that it sounds rather unnecessary.

2) There are already movements that support these extra causes. If I want to fight racism, promote women’s rights or anything else, I could join one of the many groups around that are already fighting these things. They have nothing to do with atheism. We might as atheists also fight these causes, but it is not part of atheism. This also applies to things like homeopathy – we might be atheists plus homeopaths without contradiction. If there is to be an atheist movement at all, it should be to ensure that atheists are not discriminated against, but this is not to say that the atheist movement should not promote these sorts of things internally. For instance, there should be no sexist or racist (…etc.) discrimination at atheist conferences, just as there also should be no such discrimination at Wagner Society meet-ups. There is no need for ‘Wagnerism+’ for those who are Wagnerites plus believe in gay rights and so forth. Just as it doesn’t make sense for the Wagner Society to be about fighting transphobia, it doesn’t make much sense for the atheist movement to be about that either. Wagnerites might still hold these beliefs and are of course welcome to join feminist groups, but it does not make much sense for the Wagner Society itself to fight these causes.

3) It is unclear exactly which issues should follow the ‘plus’. Even if you are still on McCreight’s side at this point, you might have your own idea about what ‘Atheism+’ should mean. I have already seen requests for extra doctrines, like animal rights and so forth. What about a concern for the poor? What about a welfare state? What about supporting Palestine? It is unclear how we decide what does or does not count as part of ‘Atheism+’. What about atheism plus the view that immigration is out of control? I doubt they would support that idea (and nor would I), but why not? It is a positive belief accompanying some people’s atheism after all. Should the third wave not include these sorts of people?

4) It seems to be exclusionary. McCreight writes:

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift.

I think that I have been arguing that issues of equality, when not confined to meta-issues like conference organisation and so forth are examples of mission drift. Barbara Drescher wrote an excellent post about the issue of mission drift in the skeptical movement. The idea that people like Drescher and I are ‘infesting’ the movement and causing it ‘to die’ is in my view, very unfair. We should be able to talk about these issues, but already ‘Atheism+’ seems unwelcoming to those who question it. What if we disagree about what exactly ‘social justice’ entails? What if we disagree on whether x is or isn’t an instance of homophobia? What if we believe that atheists+ should oppose hate speech laws?

5) Why ‘Atheism+’ and not ‘Social Justice+’? As McCreight describes it, it seems that the social justice component is the most important part. Why does she not campaign for the idea that there should be a new wave of social justice? “I believe in social justice plus I’m an atheist”. “I fight racism plus I think religion is harmful”. I think there is no substantive difference between this and her position, and yet all it does is sever ties with some strong allies. There are plenty of religious people who fought and are still fighting for some form of social justice: Martin Luther King, Mary Daly, and more recently Giles Fraser, Rowan Williams and Christina Rees (and many more, of course). Why exclude them? If you keep the social justice movement separate from extra baggage like atheism you are less likely to exclude those who would otherwise support your cause.

So what’s the harm? Perhaps there is no harm. If atheism+ appeals to some people, then I think they should go ahead join in with it. It might however lead to the view that any non-believer who doesn’t identify as an ‘atheist+’ doesn’t really care about social issues. That would be a mistake, in my opinion. It might also put off* some atheists from identifying as an atheist because they disapprove of one or more of Atheism+’s doctrines. I also feel that it lends support to the (sometimes harmful) notion of ‘atheist beliefs’.

* That is, if ‘atheism+’ becomes famous outside of a handful of blogs and lasts for more than a few weeks. I’m sceptical of that, too.

Like this:

74 Responses

Point #5 makes it clear that they are, in actuality, “their particular brand of feminism + atheists”.

At the latest TAM, Pamela Gay spoke about females in science. Though Gay is a theist (not a deist, a Christian who believes the stories of Jesus are historically accurate and he died on the cross for our salvation), her speech was happily supported by the Atheist+.

Compare that to the ridicule A+ heaps onto atheists who work with Christians to increase acceptance of evolution.

Compare that to the ridicule A+ heaps onto atheists who work with Christians to build shelters for homeless homosexual teens, or volunteering in food pantries run by churches.

Indeed, back when Gay was just a Christian ‘skeptic’, not someone speaking about ‘women’, A+ was happy to ridicule her as well.

Atheism is not the priority. Science is not the priority. Social justice is not the priority. Skepticism is not the priority. Their brand of feminism is the priority, and everything else is an add on. Sometimes. Only when convenient. And its usually not.

“But in any case, the revised conclusion makes even more clear that I am talking about marginalizing a group of people within the atheist movement (I am thus not talking about chucking non-atheists into the sewers–plenty of non-atheists are fully on board with the actual values of Atheism+) and that I am not talking about defining whether you are “in” or “out” by adopting any label (what you call yourself doesn’t matter), but by whether you thumbs-up or thumbs-down the values of Atheism+ (which even a conscientious Christian or Muslim could do).”

“I am thus not talking about chucking non-atheists into the sewers–plenty of non-atheists are fully on board with the actual values of Atheism+”

“plenty of non-atheists are fully on board with the actual values of Atheism+”

I have to disagree. I don’t think it’s about any particular brand of feminism any more than it’s any of those other things you mentioned. It’s about ego. Maybe it’s even about money; that I really can’t tell, but I do know that delusions of grandeur are a huge part of this thing.

I see this as nothing more than another bad response to criticism. It just isn’t possible that they are wrong or are ill-equipped to lead. They just haven’t figured out how to demonstrate superiority.

People are telling you that you don’t understand science and can’t understand their arguments well enough to refute them? Change the conversation. Instead of responding to criticism, focus on perceived slights and paint one’s self a victim. Wave a flag of liberal vague values, and everyone who doesn’t take up the charge in your wake is against those liberal values. Dare to criticize and you must be projecting or jealous. It’s really hard to defend claims that one understands science, but it’s incredibly easy to defend one’s claims to a vague set of values that most people hold.

I have to agree with you and Abbie – making atheism a central feature is exclusionary and contradicts the concept of social justice.

It certainly isn’t new that people who don’t know much about the movements they join would be disappointed that it doesn’t turn out to be what they are looking for and it isn’t new that they wouldn’t realize that what they are looking for already exists. But it also isn’t new that vague, grandiose ideals get people excited.

I prefer the focused, goal-oriented work that I do. It’s inclusive and actually provides useful tools for making the world a better place for everyone, not just those who agree with me.

Brilliant article. I especially agree with point #3. I’m an atheist plus I’m an anarchist. If I told that to the users of Freethought Blogs, they’d freak the fuck out. If you ask me, Jen McCreight created Atheism+ just so she could inflate her ego. I have a feeling the hype over Atheism+ will die out in a month and won’t become famous beyond Freethought Blogs and a couple of other blogs.

Thanks! I’m not sure we can assess Jen’s motivation. I do think that she’s serious and not just ‘inflating her ego’. But sometimes I think they overstate their power in the atheist movement. I know plenty of atheists in real life, and none of them are talking about Atheism+.

I’m not sure that “serious” and not ego-driven are mutually exclusive. Jen has never listened to advice that does not suit her self-serving agenda. Her post about sexism mentions her disappointment that Boobquake wasn’t an empowering, pro-science protest, but fails to mention the way she dismissed and argued with everyone who tried to warn her (like me) that it was a bad idea. If she had, she’d have missed out on seeing herself on CNN and Colbert.

I think they believe that they have power, but the more they alienate people outside their little circle by insisting that everyone see everything exactly the way they do or risk being bullied and shunned, the more they deflate whatever power they did have. You can only burn so many bridges before you’re living on an island.

Is anyone else sick and tired of others telling you what it is you think, believe, and support? I seriously doubt someone who can’t figure out what the definition of atheist is has any valuable insight into what is good/bad for atheism or skepticism or the direction it should be moving in.

Thanks for the comment. I don’t mind them telling me what they believe, so long as they tolerate opposing viewpoints. That way we can all sit round and discuss it. However, I don’t think they are all that tolerant of dissent, unfortunately.

“I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired.
I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am”
— Monty Python

There IS already a genuine movement with Atheism as its core:
The Raelians.
Seriously.
They also hold as an added social value that of extreme sexism against females,and an inordinate attraction to woo.

If Jen is not to be a hypocrite, she should be praising Raelians to the rooftops!
But wait.
This real-life situation reveals the absurdity, the vacuity of her illogical offerings.

Thanks for the comment. I think they would answer that adding Raelianism would contradict the other principles, e.g. skepticism and rationality. That would be where they think skepticism and rationality leads, of course!

I wonder what blackmail they have over otherwise rational individuals in order to co-op them into their anti-feminist church cult?
Thunderf00t escaped, but now they have hypnotised Carrier, who was the last person in the FreeFromThoughtBlog hive to have acquiesced to such irrational bonkers insanity.

“There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all.”

“…so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst…”

“…but it paralleled my more private thinking about the evil among us.”

“Indeed, as the Surly Amy story shows, there are clearly many of us who disregard the happiness of others just to hurt them, mocking or insulting (or even threatening) them merely to please one’s own vanity or self-righteousness, in complete disregard of the pointless misery it causes another human being. That is fucking evil. And if you are complicit in that, or don’t even see what’s wrong with it, or worse, plan to engage in Christian-style apologetics for it, defending it with the same bullshit fallacies and tactics the Christians use to defend their own immorality or that of their fictional god, then I don’t want anything to do with you. You are despicable. You are an awful person. You disgust me. You are not my people.”

“Until and unless they realize their own sins and repent of them.”

“In the meantime, I call everyone now to pick sides.”

Dissension from the received wisdom is now classed as an evil, viewing it as ignorance or stupidity maybe but evil!?

The dismissal of dissenters as sub-humans that are the embodiment of evil, vile, awful, despicable beings that disgust!?

The notion that offending religious sensibilities is par for the course but dare ye not offend the sacred ones for all are equal but some are more equal than others. Not to mention that these folks taking such easy offense is good cause to become enraged!? Where’s the difference with those who became ‘enraged’ over a cartoon?

That dissent, apart from being evil is also presented in religious language, a sin to be repented of, presumably the sincerity and acceptance of repentance to be judged by the hierarchy?

And a final call to pick sides!?

Seriously, wtf is wrong with these people? Is this marginalizing, McCarthyite call to cull a Poe? It’s like all perspective and reason have been deemed superfluous to requirements and jettisoned.

Carrier’s post uses language that, in my head at least, sounds like a movie version of “god” shouting out commandments. I have never been impressed by Carrier (I tried to watch the recording of his Skepticon 3 talk, but he made so many factual and reasoning errors that I had to stop at about 20 minutes), but delusions of grandeur are what come to mind when I read that post.

Out of morbid curiosity I perused the comment section on the manifesto. It was somewhat unsettling to see such insanity eagerly received, so the gushing praise I expected, but the reasoned defense of the screed? Twas little more than casual dismissive insult, exhortation to GTFO and the mere assertion that a naysayer was irrational or similar, and thus presumably no more need be said in answer to their points. Mind you how else could one defend such nonsense.

I’m new to the blog and was directed here by a friend and I have to say, great post. You highlighted many things that I initially thought about this A+ initiative and raised some points that I hadn’t considered.

The people spearheading this including many of the bloggers and readers at FTB are mistaken in trying to make atheism into a worldview, or believing that it was when they became involved in the various organizations. It’s not a worldview, and never could be. It’s one component that can inform any number of worldviews. Furthermore, their feeling as though the consensus of progressive values and ideas about social justice at FTB is an extension of atheism is a fundamental mistake, and this will be demonstrated as suggested in point #3 of this post as more people enter into the movement and this quickly becomes A++.

The point raised in a comment about feminism being the primary driving force underlying the initiative is very convincing and I would add that there is a desire for power and control as well, as they realized that was not something they could wrestle away from longstanding organizations. Ultimately, I believe that if this doesn’t die a death on it’s own in a few months, as suggested in a previous comment, it will become clear how foolish it was to try to turn atheism into a sociopoltical movement while still trying to maintain the semblance that everything is the same, there’s just more. If they go down this road, they will learn that everything is in fact the same and that they are essentially in a movement with people from various political persuasions, some more radical than others, and those others are going to want their viewpoint put forth as well, while the only thing they truly have in common is atheism. They will become the troglodytes that they insist control everything outside the safety and ‘civilized’ borders of their community.

The people spearheading this including many of the bloggers and readers at FTB are mistaken in trying to make atheism into a worldview, or believing that it was when they became involved in the various organizations. It’s not a worldview, and never could be. It’s one component that can inform any number of worldviews.

Yes, exactly. What about atheist pro-lifers? That’s not a view I myself hold, but I wouldn’t want to alienate people just because they disagree with me. It is much better to argue the issue rather than making it about purity (in some sense of the word).

“I would add that there is a desire for power and control as well, as they realized that was not something they could wrestle away from longstanding organizations.”

This is exactly what I see going on. If you look at the timing, it makes sense. They began to vilify D.J. Grothe in January, after it became clear that the JREF was not planning to alter its mission to include progressive ideology. When he did not cave under that pressure and programming such as Jamy Ian Swiss’s speech communicated scope clearly, skeptics became another outgroup to leverage.

Notung: “The label ‘atheist’ doesn’t speak about other beliefs you might have, unless it would be contradictory …”

I would pay good money to see the discomfited expressions of these hipster subtellectuals, if it could somehow be brought home to them that as fervent, passionate, uncompromising, cutting-edge bla-bla a-theists (let’s just leave the hard, tiring, uncool bits, like thinking, on the shelf, eh?) they were in the same bag as, for example, animist tribespeople who sacrifice and undertake all sorts of non-functional activities with regard to various imaginary entities.
None of which are gods, or are believed to reside in any dimension other than right here on Earth, in the here and now.

.. and another thing young man .. I think they would answer that adding Raelianism would contradict the other principles, e.g. skepticism and rationality. That would be where they think skepticism and rationality leads, of course!”

I have no idea what half-baked rubbish they might regurgitate in justifying their statements, but since a good number of fundamental beliefs of theirs are simply not open for discussion, never mind sceptical or rational examination, and any attempt to pursue the even the basic facts results in a temper tantrum, I’d say they demonstrably and most definitely do not include scepticism or rationality among their “atheist” core beliefs.
Whatever they may say they do.

When people find out that I am an atheist, they often assume that I subscribe to a over-arching “progressive” ideology and are surprised that I do not march in lock-step on a variety of political issues. I have heard: “You are an atheist and you support capitol punishment? How can that be?” When I respond that my lack of belief in a divine being (or beings) has nothing to do with my beliefs on the proper punishment for murder, I have heard things back like “but . . . you say you are an atheist . . .” Now the A+ people want to take the stereotype that atheists are associated with all aspects of the modern “progressive” ideology and make it official, and if you don’t march in ideological lockstep with them on every single issue, you are an outcast, and in reality a sub-human (If you don’t think that the bloggers on FtB think that people who disagree with them are sub-human, just read PZ’s blog for a while).

I am reminded also of the scene form the Life Of Brian where the various factions of Judean revolutionary action are in the amphitheater, bitterly splintering into smaller and smaller groups, with utter contempt and hatred for the other revolutionary groups. Is A+ the People’s Judean Front? Or the People’s Front for Judea? Because if you are a member of the other little splinter group, you are a fiend and a traitor.

Now the A+ people want to take the stereotype that atheists are associated with all aspects of the modern “progressive” ideology and make it official

I’ve seen conflicting statements about this. Sometimes they seem to say that this is a brand new movement, and sometimes they say that this is about “cleaning up atheism and making it more inclusive” (to paraphrase). I certainly have the same worries as you do – that the common misconception that atheists believe x, y, z seems to be embodied in ‘atheism+’.

All wonderful points here. I happened to read the post Jen made where she listed out all the ism’s that Atheism+ (A+) will cover and I found it hilarious. The comments within 20 minutes already showed the cracks developing when you try to herd the cats of ism’s.

I have just posted to my blog (go via my name):
“Enlightenment” is better than “Atheism+”.

I wonder whether “Atheism+” is taking off because so many of the advocates are in the USA, where atheism is a big deal? In Europe it can be pretty boring!

I don’t object to atheists extending their viewpoint, but atheism isn’t the only valid starting point, and from a global point of view isn’t the most important. If we all treated religions as hobbies, (which is really what religious practices are), the other problems become far more important than religions.

Thanks for the comment. I agree with Barbara that “taking off” is premature. It still seems to me like it is contained only within one small corner of the online community. I liked your post though, especially this:

If “Atheism+” raises awareness that “atheism” is not an end-point, then it will serve a useful purpose. But it is too narrow, and not inclusive enough.

Raising awareness that atheism doesn’t mean “believing in nothing” might be a useful side effect, but it might also have the opposite effect, i.e. appear as a concession that “believing in nothing” was what atheism meant up until now.

Not only is it happening one corner, but most of my friends are not even talking about it. Granted, it is happening at a network that most of us are basically ignoring, partly because they seem to have little to offer reasonable people (there are only one or two skeptical blogs which have managed to maintain integrity, such as “Token Skeptic”), but mostly because they/we find their behavior morally reprehensible.

I am still surprised that more have not noticed it and spoken up. It’s more than just a silly, juvenile fad. Most of the posts on it concern me a great deal in their use of tribal language. Given PZ’s admissions that his methods include inciting tribalism and conflict, this is shaping into a hate group.

Frankly, I am astonished by anyone’s read of Carrier’s post as “reasonable”.

Barry:” If we all treated religions as hobbies, (which is really what religious practices are), the other problems become far more important than religions.”
I have my anorak, several spiral-bound notepads, a 2b pencil, and a flask of weak lemon drink.
Religion will never, I repeat never become as important as hobbies!
(Although there is an impressive range of memorabilia to collect .. hmm …)

This initiative only serves to divide Atheism, into Atheists, and Holier-Than-Thou-Atheists.

The agenda seems to be carefully crafted largely after McCreight’s own political views. Thus, “A+” becomes not a movement but a personal cult, under the guise of rationalism, skepticism and critical thinking.

Many of the subjects listed could have been put together under “discrimination”. That begs the question, which forms of discrimination are not mentioned? And why not? Because they don’t reflect McCreight’s own political views? If not, why not simply put them together as one?

It could be interesting to see McCreight poll those who support this new faction of Atheism on where they stand politically. My prediction is that they will predominantly be liberal/left-wingers. Thus, Atheism is pigeon-holed into a specific wing of the political spectrum, with clear implications: You may be a conservative Atheist, but you are not a real Atheist unless you are of McCreight’s political colour.

One of the listed goals is “proper language”. This is by far the most worrying, and smacks of Orwellian thinking: What is “proper language”, and, more to the point, what is not? What happened to the First Amendment? We cannot use foul language anymore? Together with “intersectionality”, a theory in feminist sociology, it leads one to suspect that the goals are not just clearly feminist, but gender feminist: Women are seen as perpetual victims, as the current events in our midst certainly leaves that impression.

The object of this initiative is clearly not to act as an including political force, but to establish itself as the elitist one: Not only are the members atheists, they are the atheists with a social conscience. Thus, those atheists who are non-party members are deemed to be of a lesser degree of humanistic development. There will always be an implicit minus sign attached to those who are “only” atheists. They may be atheists, but they are second-rate atheists, of lower humanistic value than the A+’ers.

The fundamental ideology of this movement is doomed from the start. But I have little doubt that the movement itself will resonance deeply among those who feel they are not only right, but self-righteous.

Okay, the general reaction here seems to be, ‘We don’t like Atheism+’. Fair enough. What I’m not seeing is an alternative response to the problems they are attempting to deal with. Death threats and rape threats are not acceptable. What do you suggest? Are there adequate ways to deal with this in place? Why ARE there fewer women involved, and how do we make women more comfortable/safe/whatever?

One of the reasons there are fewer women involved in this movement is because of constant attack posts on certain blogs that go far beyond name-calling and focus on destroying people’s reputations, status, and careers. I am constantly emailed by women who say they’re afraid to speak up, or don’t want to disclose their names because of the fear of the repercussions. The bullying behavior of certain atheist groups is out of control. Another reason is utter intolerance for any diversity of opinion. And a final reason is that there are simply less women in the hard sciences than there are men. This is bound to be reflected in a movement with science at its heart. While we can speculate about women’s interests and whether they are genetic or socially conditioned, this is a pointless exercise when it comes to addressing the issue.

Further, constant harping about how misogynistic this community is should cease immediately. The only misogynists I’ve seen in the movement are self-proclaimed feminist men who treat women as “different, weak, and special,” while at the same time trashing those women who do not fit their expectation of how a woman should think. We are all human beings, and courting rituals are normal. Crimes, on the other hand, should be immediately reported, although none have occurred outside of the online forums and blogosphere.

As for anonymous internet threats of rape or violence, they should be reported to the authorities as well, especially if deemed credible. Attacks on individuals for expressing opinions should cease. In group/our group members should be treated with respect and an assumption of equality. Arguments should be interpreted most charitably so that the strongest argument prevails. And finally, while women’s rights should be advocated, men’s rights shouldn’t be ignored. Ignoring concerns expressed by men does not help women. Diversity should be encouraged and accommodated, but it should not be the primary goal of a movement that is primarily about something else.

This isn’t that difficult. You don’t get a more inclusive and friendly movement through ostracism and bullying. You do it by being inclusive and friendly.

“Death threats and rape threats are not acceptable. What do you suggest?”

Calling the police. Is this a trick question or something? If it’s more than some losers on the internet trolling for kicks and you think it’s a legitimate threat, get the police involved, sheesh.

“Why ARE there fewer women involved”

The answer as many FTBers would have you believe is that atheists/skeptics are sexist. Just as atheists are homophobic, anti-trans, racist, etc, just because it’s apparently all white males. Except it’s not – currently a lot of prominent atheists are white males, yes, but there’s also a lot of good, prominent female skeptics, black skeptics, etc, and acting like the skeptic movement is somehow biased anytime one group appears to be underrepresented is basically undermining skepticism as a whole.

As to the question of why fewer women attend TAM now, the whole ‘you’re gonna get raped!’ internet scaremongering FTBers have been doing just might have something to do with it.

It is one thing that people say bad things about you, especially on the internet. The global village does have a large group of village idiots. Par for the course, I certainly get my share of various threats.

However, it is quite another matter if atheists, skeptics, humanists and the like threaten you with rape.

Consider this: We have not heard one single name of those “hundreds of atheists” who, according to Rebecca Watson, has threatened to rape her, thought she should be raped, or that she was too ugly to rape.

Likewise, with the other women who have received similar threats: No names of these atheists.

At the very least, those who threaten with rape should be reported to the police. But not even a word on that. Only repetitions of the claims.

I would hate for the stories of rape threats to be false. But it would be much worse if women did not take action against those who threaten them with rape – especially if you base a large part of your identity as someone who actively fights such abominations.

Unfortunately, when you ask Rebecca, Jen, Greta, Amy and other women why they won’t reveal the names of these people, they make excuses, resort to ad hominem, and will probably ban you.

That’s not a very good approach, if you want people, especially skeptics, atheists, humanists, to be convinced.

2) There are fewer women because there is a threatening unpleasant misogynist enviroment.

Maybe, fewer women are interested in the movement (just like, apparently from what I have read, fewer men than women are interested in church).

I have not seen any discussion of why exactly equal gender representation is so important though for the atheist movement. I mean, of course, the more people join the cause the better, but at the same time, we need to respect that people have different interests, and with only 24 hours in the day, people might choose different activities. It is an interesting point I would like to see some more discussion about.

[…] go so far as to accuse those at Freethought Blogs of trying to create a new religion. There is some honest, legitimate criticism of the idea of creating a new atheist movement, but a lot of it simply seems to come from those […]

GaylenePaula“Death threats and rape threats are not acceptable. What do you suggest?”

Absolutely not “acceptable”. Are you mad?

Here’s what I’d suggest.
Step 1: call the cops.
Step 2: call more cops.
Step 3: if you think I should get involved, and I just despair if you do, then show & tell
I don’t just take the word of random strangers at face value, you know. Call me sceptical. Or evil. Do not care.
So’s I can get even half a clue as to what you’re on about. What threats? Where? Who? etc.

Surly Amy is the target of a harassment campaign. She had to leave TAM early, causing a atheist on twitter to suggest to her that she should set herself on fire. Oh and a blog dedicated to harassing women who speak up doxed her.
A thread came up on an atheist forum wondering if it were immoral to rape a Skepchick. Someone actually thought that was funny. Sickening.

Paula Kirby was told to kill herself today. My address was posted on Laden’s site (by a commenter) along with work info and my full name in several hate threads about me, and then I was attacked for that (there’s a huge thread about what a liar I am on one of the FTB blogs, although everyone agrees that my address was, indeed, posted and I never said by whom). All just because I’m not a fan of Watson and not a gender feminist (though I’m a far left liberal). Anyway, I learned that it’s OK to post my home address because I’m annoying, and that posting my business address in always OK so that people can try to damage my career as a lawyer because it’s relevant to my online behavior…or vice versa… or something. Justin was threatened with assault. DJ was told that he should quit his job. Miranda Hale was told to set herself on fire. CLS was told to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. An attempt has been made to get Abbie Smith fired and expelled. I’ve received emailed threats about what would happen to me if I don’t behave. Google searches have been poisoned in an attempt to get people to lose their jobs or remain unemployed. Private communications have been disclosed. Myers constantly tells women that their opinions are invalid because they’re mentally ill. He also banned a transsexual for complaining about comparing the Catholic clergy to transexuals. I’ve been called a bitch by the same people who would faint if the same happened to Watson. Dawkins was grossly maligned. Krauss was lied about. Dunning was attacked because they didn’t like a picture that he used for an album cover. Sarah Mayhew was called a “fuckface.” Multiple people are still told to rape themselves with porcupines on a daily basis. People have received DMCA notices for ridiculous reasons. Need I go on? Because the examples are infinite.

The email that made Benson decide not to go was from a concerned friend. I haven’t seen any of the others, and I have no reason to believe her. Watson’s behavior has established that her claims cannot be taken at face value. The talk of raping Skechicks, however, is inappropriate and gross. I hope Twitter was contacted about it, so that those who engaged in that sickening behavior would be disciplined and banned.

You asked what should be done to stop this BS, and I told you. Demonizing men isn’t going to make them sympathetic to your cause.

Anyway, what was that you said about rape threats and Surly crying over a pro-equality t-shirt while selling $8,000 worth of Surly Ramics? The info that was disclosed about her was her public business address (and her home address) which can be found on the web in seconds. Unlike me, she doesn’t live alone, either.

“These are only some of the stories I’ve seen.”
And that is what they remain: stories.
No evidence, just stories.
And trolls.
Amy changed her story with every breeze, and now it has morphed out of all belief.
Benson’s “threatening” email was nothing of the sort, not even by an overly charitable reading.
“Oh and a blog dedicated to harassing women who speak up doxed her.”
You refer to her public details that Amy deliberately made public herself, in order to make money from her craft?
How the hell is that “doxxing”?

It’s difficult to see what A+ hopes to achieve with the policies of marginalisation and ostracisation that you espouse Richard. Is not the basis of discrimination the devaluation of groups of persons based on perceived characteristics that differ from some sort of supposed norm within a culture or community – whether they be of gender, race, religion or whatever, and the accumulation of priviliges that conformity to the norm brings?

Certainly the use of such aggressive language such as ‘well you can just fuck off’ , ‘you’re either with us or against us’, is hardly likely to endear this nascent organisation, (or whatever it turns out to be), to many people who might have some worthwhile viewpoints to offer. You speak as though the issues were cut n dried, and as though you have some sort of certainty or clarity about who the people with integrity and compassion and reasonableness are.

How do you do that?

Are sex positive feminists or sex negative femanists reasonable? What about conservative feminists who embrace and adopt a male model of success and achievment. What about those who maintain that gender role is a social construnct in which biology plays little or minimal part? Is that reasonable? What about post-structuralist feminism? Is it ok to be a Marxist but not a Capitalist?

You can shun or try to silence as many people as you want. It won’t make anyone go away, it won’t make anyone shut up. It won’t help anyone on the path to A plusness any faster.

You speak at length about throwing people out of this new movement. Apparently, you expect this to happen rather often.

I would like to know who exactly gets to throw people out. Is there already a committee, or some other form of body within the organization, with the power to do that? If so, who is sitting on the committee?

Also, I would be very interested to learn the names of, oh, 10 people who are already Atheist+’ers (or whatever your preferred moniker will be).

Thanks in advance.

However, Richard does say this:

“Oh no, don’t worry, I haven’t disallowed your post. I’ve just been working long days (as I warned in the article itself) and haven’t had time to get to all the hundreds of comments waiting in the queue (and now with the weekend–I don’t work on weekends, I spend those days with my wife–there will be even longer delay).”

Carrier may have simply chosen not to publish your comment. His post clearly demonstrates an intolerance for dissent. And that’s his choice.

As reasonable as your comment is, we have to keep in mind people have the right (the obligation, really) to decide what is posted in their space. It may be unproductive and even contradict the skeptic philosophy to silence dissent rather than moderate discussion, but that’s why we are all free to post our criticisms in our own spaces.

Dear Notung, congratulations with this excellently written article, I agree 100%. It is the best thing about A+ I have read so far! I have nothing to add. Hopefully, we can look forward to more such intelligently and well-balanced written posts about this topic.